Jump to content

Talk:Synth-pop/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"Mainstream popularity Worldwide 1980s and late 2000s/present"

What?!

What about the early to mid-90s?

There were lots of songs in this genre that were very popular then. Bolegash (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of House music or Eurodance. Of course everything electronic these days gets called synth or electropop for some weird reason. Theburning25 (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Synthpop/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on SilkTork. I am relatively free in terms of editing at the moment, so I should be able to help deal with any fixable issues relatively quickly. I look forward to the comments.--SabreBD (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Initial review

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

  • While checking the history I noted that there has been a fair amount of reverting of IP and new accounts; I can semi-protect the article against vandalism, though am aware that on some articles IP accounts can add valuable content, so there is a judgement decision to be made by regular contributors: do the positive contributions by IP accounts outweigh the nuisance edits? Are folks here willing to carry on watching and reverting? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I went back through the diffs as far as the merger and I don't think there was a single positive edit. However, for myself, I prefer not to protect unless traffic is very happy. I think this article has enough regular editors to keep it in pretty good shape. However, others may disagree.--SabreBD (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
This might break the rules since it is not about "this" article but if any consideration should be given to protecting articles that time and effort should go to genre "list" articles. You will see reverting of IP is a much much more common occurrence. As for this article I agree it is under control at this point. Edkollin (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I probably changed this to notes because to me these are notes and not references, i.e. unsorted details with a page number. To me references are something like the results of the sfn system that give a list of publications in alphabetical order. I cannot see where WP:FOOTERS disagrees with that interpretation, but I could be wrong. I should add that I don't really care about this, so if you want to change it back please feel free.--SabreBD (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry for delay in finishing this review. It was a rather ambitious batch of GANs I took on, and I haven't had as much free time (and energy) to work on all of them as I had hoped. I know how frustrating it is to wait for two months for a GA review, and then for that review to move very slowly! I should be able to focus on this in the next day or so. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Definition of "synthpop" / lead sentence. The lead sentence is perhaps a bit vague on the definition of synthpop. There are sources, such as Allmusic and the Oxford Dictionary, which define it as an 80s musical style, and a quick look at sources on Google Books would bear that out. Has there been a recent edit which has removed mentioned of the 80s? That would make sense, as the second sentence doesn't quite work otherwise - there seems to be an assumption in the second sentence that the 80s is understood. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorted the lead sentence. Hopefully this makes more sense now.--SabreBD (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think so, its not very neutral language, although we should perhaps retain something about their punk origins. I will check the sources for some wording.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "This prompted their lead singer, Gary Numan, to go solo." Not clear what prompted him. I assume it's the success of "Are Friends Electric?" rather than the band using synthesizers or being little known. And is it accurate? My understanding is that the only real difference was that Numan changed from recording under the name Tubeway Army, to recording under the name Gary Numan. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you are right that the success is intended. Perhaps the best way out of this one is to say something like: "Numan began to record under his own name".--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've read it several times, and I'm not sure that the Characteristics section is clear enough. I'm not getting a simple explanation of what synthpop is, rather I am getting a theoretical discussion that is perhaps too soon, and too involved. It feels like it is written by people who already know about synthpop, and have made perhaps too many assumptions about what the reader is likely to know. The statement that synthpop "abandoned punk's emphasis on authenticity and often pursued a deliberate artificiality" is not grounded in a basic and simple description of what synthpop actually is, so a reader wouldn't be able to visualise the music, or how it compared to punk. A statement that synthpop was, in part, a reaction against punk - in terms of instruments, appearance, attitude and glamour - might be simpler and clearer, and the artifice of synthpop, which is taken from a variety of sources, such as Krautrock and Minimal music, not just the reaction to punk, would also be worth explaining more fully - though perhaps a little later, after there was some simple and clear description of the music itself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that is a good plan for a rewrite. I will try to pull something together along those lines.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have anything on this that I know of, so I could use some help here.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence that starts - "1980 saw the release of a series of highly influential synthpop albums, including Devo's Freedom of Choice...." has a series of citations, but none of them appear to fully support the statement that the albums were "highly influential synthpop". SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
As I recall when I was finding sources I had a lot of trouble with this particular passage and ended up cutting it down (there were a lot more albums) and finding sources to support the release of the albums. Does this make sense if we drop the comment on highly influential? That would be the simple solution.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The section Precursors is very useful and informative. I wonder, though, if it is too detailed for this article. The section is mainly talking about electronic music, and wanders through various musicians who used electronics such as ELP and The Who, and on details about early synthesizers, so there is a loss of focus on synthpop. I think the first two paragraphs could be substantially reduced. As an example, Rock music summarises the main instrument thus: "The sound of rock is traditionally centered around the electric guitar, which emerged in its modern form in the 1950s with the popularization of rock and roll." Perhaps the first paragraph could be similarly summarised? "The sound of synthpop is centred on the synthesizer, an electronic instrument that was used intermittently in pop music in the 1960s, and then more fully explored in the 1970s by composers such as the American Wendy Carlos and Krautrock bands such as Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk." SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It probably is too much (because it borrows from electronic rock), I will see if I can get something cohesive based on the relevant bit in rock music.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Well then if that is the case we will rephrase that.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I have checked the passage and the source and I cannot see anything word for word. There are no complete sentences taken over here. Given that there is a clear citation that gives credit this looks like fair use to me. However, it is possible I am looking at the wrong section or missing something so I may need more details.--SabreBD (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There are minor typos in the prose, which are not a major issue, I'm correcting them as I spot them. However, the prose is not always as "clear" as it could be. The language at times is dense with information, and sprinkled with jargon such as "arpeggiated beats", "setting a template with less minimalism, more varying use of synthesizer lines", and "the Numan Futurist movement", and this is combined with sentences which don't seem to relate to what is being said about the development of synthpop - "In opposition to the anti hero punk attitude, Numan desired to be a pop star", "I Ran (So Far Away)" (1982) by A Flock of Seagulls is generally considered the first hit by a British act to enter the Billboard Top Ten as a result of the power of video" - or which appear inserted here and there without consideration of what has been said earlier in the paragraph. The Declining popularity and development section is an example of this muddle, as it jumps around between UK and USA, and between synthpop declining and synthpop being successful, so by the end one is not sure what is happening to synthpop in which country. The article needs a good copyedit, preferably by someone who has not been involved in it, so there are fresh eyes on it. You could try asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. The difficulty for such a copyeditor, is that this is not just about tidying up the prose, but about the clarity of the content, so some understanding of the topic and knowledge of the sources would be needed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I take the point about those passages, the tone of which I have never really been happy with. The problems with the order of the latter sections are largely created by these being moved about by a series of editors. I didn't revert these because they had a point. Perhaps we need to go back to the original order, if we can find it. Is there time to get the guild of copyeditors to look at this before we run out of time? They do have quite a backlog.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I have done my best to fix the offending phrases and to sort the order. I cant say its easy to do this while not putting in points to join the dots that might be considered OR.--SabreBD (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Need to find some new sources on this one and rephrase.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Along with the above mentioned statement which when checked is not supported by the cited sources, there are occasional statements which are challengable and not cited. I will go through and mark a few. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. Will await this list.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of work here. Unfortunately, this is a weekend when I do not have a lot of free time, so there may be a need for patience over some of this.--SabreBD (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would rather spend a month and see an article improved and listed, than close as a fail after a week because all the work hasn't been done. As long as there is reasonable progress and reasonable hope, I'm happy to keep the review open. I also understand that we are all volunteers, and that real life takes priority. Communication is the key. It's when there is no communication and no work done that I get concerned.
That's great. I would rather have a review which honestly points out the issues, rather than one that just nods it through. I will keep you posted on my progress. Of course other editors may get to some of this before I do.--SabreBD (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Second invasion material was drawn from Reynolds Edkollin (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Done Edkollin (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

On hold

This article has made great progress since this version in June, and all those involved are to be commended for the work they have done. There is much to like and admire in this article. It is clear that good research has been done, and much material has been assembled. I feel that there is a decent article here, though it needs some work to bring it out. There needs to be some clarity about what synthpop is, and when it emerged and was at its height. There needs to be clarity of the difference between synthpop and other forms of electronic music, so a reader can identify what synthpop is, and also so the editors of this article can decide who to include and why - the second paragraph of Declining popularity and development, for example, appears to be wandering away from synthpop. The prose needs sharpening so that jargon is avoided or explained. Some material needs to be trimmed, so the article focuses on synthpop rather than the entire history of electronic music. The article needs a decent copyedit to ensure flow and meaning and relevance. Some of the sourcing needs looking at. This may seem a lot of work, but it's just a case of tidying up what is here. It may be that the main contributors can see the flaws and can do the tidying up themselves; or it may need a fresh pair of eyes to come in and do the work. Main points:

  • Copyedit for clarity and flow
  • Check sources, particularly where the source has been almost copied
  • Trim the Precursors section
  • Define synthpop and ensure article remains focused on that topic

I'll put this on hold to allow the work to be done, and in the meantime I'll do a bit more background reading into synthpop. Any questions, please give me a ping. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This weekend is the first time I will be able to get down to serious editing, so I hope we will have made quite a lot of progress by the time you get back. Have a good run.--SabreBD (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Did a reread of the article is and what struck me is that the "Precursor" the sections pre Kraftwork is to detailed reading more like a combo Electronic Music/Electronic Rock article then a synthpop article. I would suggest trimming that down to a summary. Hot Butter should stay and with the if I remember correctly pre merger sourcing describing it as a precursor.
"Popcorn" as forerunner done Edkollin (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
After this weekends edits are complete I would like to put language notes that some reliable sources do describe electropop as a more harder version of synthpop.
Off Topic: Good luck on your marathon Silktork Edkollin (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. Time to sum up and take stock of changes I think. Edkollin has dealt with some issues and I have done most of what I feel I can to meet the requests above at this time. Here are the major points:
  • Prose quality: the offending phrases have been changed or removed I think and much simpler language (and sentence construction) used. Of course I may have missed some. I have also done my best to copyedit the article, so perhaps we could consider whether it still needs changes and an external copyedit.--SabreBD (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Edkollin has filled in the highlighted gaps. The text didn't seem copied to me, but in any case I have adjusted some of it for safety's sake.
  • Focus: I have edited down the precursors section by about a third and I think it is much more focused on synthpop and reads a lot better. I also stuck much more closely to chronological order and hopefully the narrative of what is happening is much clearer now. Although this is tricky as we either have to jump in time or place.
  • Define synthpop: I have pretty much rewritten the characteristics section along the lines suggested and I hope it is a lot clearer.
Hopefully you are recovered from the run and can let us know if there if any of these areas need further work, or clarify any misunderstandings or omissions. Many thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, recovered (apart from a sore toe - I suspect I may lose the toe nail), and now preparing for the French Riviera Marathon in November. I'm just wrapping up Talk:Courtney Love/GA1 - editing there hasn't progressed as much as it could, so I'm getting directly involved to see if the article can be cleaned up enough to list it. There appears to be sufficient information - so I think it's just a question of ensuring the souring is adequate and also tidying the prose and presentation. When I've finished there I'll come straight here. I'm pleased to say that of the GANS I picked up a month ago, I have listed 10 and only had to fail 3. I still have 4 left, including this one, and I would be reluctant to allow them to fail at this stage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear most of you made it. I will keep tinkering until you get a chance to take a look here.--SabreBD (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Refresh

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Comments

Wiping the blackboard to make a fresh list so we can see where we are. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pass


Unsure
  • Neutral. There is a tendency to use very positive statements such as "perhaps the single most significant event in melodic music since Mersey-beat", while not including any balancing criticism. It's not a huge problem as most of the article is factual and neutral, but if that could be addressed it would be useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • MoS. Now the jargon has been sorted the article meets all the relevant MoS requirements, though the lead could do with some mention of the influence of Synthpop. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Fail


General comments
  • Clockwork Orange: "It was the first time many in the United Kingdom had heard electronic music." This is unsourced and contentious. Many people in the UK were already familiar with Dr Who, and Carlos' Switched-On Bach had been released three years earlier. Probably better to remove it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a much improved article. I found this readable, authoritative and very useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hold

Very good article - I'm impressed at the improvements that have been made. I have two small quibbles to be dealt with. The main one is the inclusion of mention of Synthpop's influence in the lead. The other one is include some balancing critical comments, though that could be seen as part of ongoing development. I'll put on hold again to allow the work to be done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Both good suggestions. I will see what can be done.--SabreBD (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pass

Nice one. This is a very useful and informative article. Keep working on it, and you can take it to FA. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the result and for a very full and considered review, which has really helped improve the quality of this article.--SabreBD (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
well done to everyone who made this happen, massive improvement from a few months back. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cultural origns

Electro pop/ Synt pop being in Germany, only there, then British bands started to play this music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.148.42 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources in this article do not agree with you. In fact. every blurb or book I have seen on this topic mentions Japanese origins.--SabreBD (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The early band genre was known as 'Technopop' and included bands such as YMO (Japanese, possibly the earliest of the genre), The Buggles, New Musik, M, Sparks of the same era, etc. These were all around in 1978-79. In the UK the genre's chart success only lasted a year or so from 1979-1980, to perhaps early 1981 with bands such as Landscape.
For an archetypal technopop single listen to Pop Muzik by M, or Technopolis by YMO. For albums try:
BTW, the reason the style was so new was that unlike earlier records that featured synthesizers, the technopop ones used synthesizers to make new sounds on the record that could not be made any other way, i.e., the sounds used did not sound like mere imitations of the sounds made by other more traditional instruments. So they sounded new.

Revised comment section on top of the article

"For the time being the courtesy of giving citation warnings has been revoked. Another words within a day or two of un or poorly cited additions to the article these additions are being reverted. In addition all deletions of cited material without reason are being reverted within a short period of time.

Efforts to improve the article are ongoing in a deliberate and cautious way by caring editors. At the same there have been many efforts by editors to make changes both it additions or deletions based solely on their opinion of the truth or the obvious and with no apparent consideration for Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sourcing. While the article his still being improved it is doing so in a one step backwards two steps forward process slowing the overall improvement of the article"


Feel free to change the language or take further action you deem necessary. Edkollin (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that is fine. I have been starting to rethink the offer of semi-protection until the review is done. Reverting unsourced or random additions is slowing the process down quite a bit.--SabreBD (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected

This article has been semi-protected, which prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a good article

A public thanks to Sabrebd who did the majority of work on this project and the other editors who chipped in when they were able to. Sabrebd took the initiative from maintenance or preventing the article from moving backwards to moving it way forward. Edkollin (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, to everyone who has added or helped to keep things stable since the merger and to Silktork for a quality review. We do have a much better article now than a few months ago. Hopefully we can keep moving forward, perhaps to FA. That is, at least when we have recovered.--SabreBD (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms?

Is it just me, or is the criticisms section (circa now) taking a lot of liberty with itself?--72.173.160.58 (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It basically tells us that some people didn't like how other people dress and called the latter faggots. Is this criticism? I think there's another word for this. I'd like to see a similar "Criticism" paragraph being added to the page on homosexuality and count in how many seconds it will be reverted. 82.80.223.100 (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I propose these references about criticizing artists that do not wear conventional attire should be removed. There's no source given and they are very vague statements. In the meantime, I have made an attempt to fix but not sure if they can even be saved. Specifically, I revised the claim that attire worn by Martin Gore of Depeche Mode "led to criticism." The claim that Gore's attire "led to criticism" engages in the debate rather than describes the debate, which the Wikipedia NPOV policy specifically advises against. But it still needs more specificity so I added the "by whom?" template. I have no idea who specifically is doing the criticizing here. I have a general hunch but of course that doesn't have a place in a Wikipedia article. An internet search on this topic resulted in low quality content I don't think can be cited in a Wikipedia article. In summary, I vote these references just be removed for being too vague. --Dejitarob (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
This is only the second time I feel the need for an edit of a Wikipedia entry. "criticism for genderbending"? Imo criticism is reserved for things that are at least politically incorrect if not outright wrong. "Gender bending" is neither. I would prefer something along the lines of somebody "opposing" or "speaking out against genderbending" with a reference to relevant articles or interviews.TheStoryteller01 (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

there was a whole american synth pop movement that i think should be recognized

cousinofelvis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.216.5 (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you give names and reliable sources please.--SabreBD (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about a British type movement but Berlin (band)[1], early Ministry (band)[2],Book of Love (band)[3] come to mind. Edkollin (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I-f

1. Is ONE (Dutch) guy (see www.discogs.com).
2. Hasn't much to do with Synth Pop at all, he mainly produces Electro.
3. "Space Invaders" first came out in 1997.
I can't edit the article. Gabbahead --78.48.239.37 (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand those references. Need a bit more detail.--SabreBD (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Just search for "I-f" in the article. ;-) http://www.discogs.com/search?q=i-f+space+invaders+1997+vinyl&type=all --78.48.128.7 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Gabbahead

I think there is a language barrier here. Are you proposing adding or deleting acts and if so which ones and why? "Space Invaders are Smoking Grass" has been reliably sourced by sources other then Discogs as synthpop. Discogs is a promotional website and is not be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Edkollin (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

80s popularity

Allmusic.com says it declined after 1983 and a BBC documentary called "Synth Britannia" also uses 1983 as the climax year for the genre's popularity. I propose the page reflects this, unless there are disagreements.

I need to remind myself of what other sources say. I seem to remember that the decline was different in the UK and the US. Somebody prompt me if I don't get back on this soon.--SabreBD (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
From sources it seemed to me massively popular to dominant in the UK 1980-1984 US 1982-1985 and still pretty popular but not quite as popular in the later in the decade. Groups like the Pet Shop Boys and Communards had hit singles but in the US with the exception of a few acts synthpop had receded into the college radio and dance club circuit.
I would reorganize the sections. Popularity is too complicated for subsection titles. That is why we are tripping over ourselves trying to get it right. Main Section for synthpop in the 1980s. Subsections to something like "Early 1980s: New Romanticism and the Second British Invasion". "Middle to late 1980s" Assimilation into the Mainstream"? This was a time when the lines between Mainstream rock, pop and dance music and synthpop were blurring. Popularity should be dealt with in these subsections Edkollin (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Depeche Mode had more hits from their 1987 and 1990 albums, Music For The Masses and Violator. Yes, the latter has some songs which are more oriented to rock, but mixing with electronic pop (like Personal Jesus). Francodamned (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

21st century revival

Not saying the Wonky pop contruct / marketing strategy is derived from Synth pop but most definately associated with it - you only have to check the artists involved in it i.e. the Wonky pop tours.It's definately part of the 21st century revival if you like that or not - it's a fact / cannot be disputed.I'm only passing on what has happened / the truth.Whether or not a Wonky pop backlash has happened or not doesn't come into it.Wonky pop is still actually mentioned in music press articles, so it is still relevent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what we think or know is pretty irrelevant. What is needed are reliable sources that support the point being made. These are clearly not reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Wonky Pop is still around? I created the article for that genre. Both of you are right in that for groups labeled "Wonky Pop" by Reliable Sources in 2008 by 2009 were being labeled "electro pop" revivalists in 2009 by a lot more reliable sources. Problem is We are not allowed to write the material despite the "obvious" conclusion based on reliable sources because it is our conclusion not a conclusion reached by a reliable source. Edkollin (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Its Spelled Nu-Wave….


Its Spelled Nu-Wave not new Wave

Thank you its extremely insulting to protect something like that

Wfku (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This article was not semi-protected because of spelling. It was semi protected because a there was a nearly continuous stream unsourced additions. If we are talking about the same thing a 1980s music genre I have never seen it spelled "Nu-Wave" only "New Wave". I am not saying it is not spelled "Nu-Wave" somewhere, but we need reliable sourcing for this. Edkollin (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Six words (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Synth pop 21st century rival / Wonky pop.

Read this on the Wonky_Pop - " Wonky Pop page was credited with causing a shift in popular musical tastes from male-driven guitar acts to female-driven 1980s style pop music seen in the synthpop revival of the later 2000s " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/5978573/La-Roux-Lady-Gaga-Mika-Little-Boots-the-80s-are-back.html

A similar reference is made but it doesn't actually mention Wonky pop, since the BBC & the Guardian associate this Synth-pop movement with Wonky pop, shouldn't some reference be made to it. To compare the Synthpop entry (under the heading is - Synth pop 21st century rival) " the British and other media proclaimed a new era of female electropop stars, citing band acts such as Little Boots, La Roux and Ladyhawke " - seems like part of the same movement to me.Why no reference to Wonky pop ????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph article does not connect late 2000s electropop/synthopop with origins in Wonky pop. What is does is associate an 80s revival with Wonky pop and suggest that this has moved on to a new form of pop music. This may include two synth based acts, but it also includes Mika, who clearly isn't synthpop. It also points to much wider origins for the movement, most of the 80s acts not being synthpop. I have nothing against the idea that the synthpop revival came out of Wonky pop as such, but this source just isn't clear enough to support the assertion.--SabreBD (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree there is a jump here from what the article is talking to the connection that is being made in your statement. Somewhat stretching what the reference is saying to fit it in here. Ridernyc (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not me that is stretching the connection it's the Guardian that is doing that .Perhaps they are privy to some of info below. Iain Watt (Machine Management - http://www.discogs.com/search?type=all&q=Iain+Watt http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/908567695) who manages Mika and founded the Wonky Pop brand , which includes live events and a record label (Wonky pop Limited (now dissolved it seems)- managing director Alex Hardee, also of Coda booking agency http://www.codaagency.com/coda/default.aspx) .Iain Watt is also the manager of Alphabeat & Goldfrapp two prominant synth pop artist's. " The Wonky Pop Tour is the collective name for three artists: Alphabeat, Frankmusik and Leon Jean Marie, who in 2008 toured venues around England under this name " - again including two prominant synth pop artist's (Alphabeat again one of them) http://livemusic.fm/band/the-wonky-pop-tour . If someone wants to add an entry into Synth pop with the obvious connection with Wonky pop - feel free.Any entry I try to make will deleted by Ridernyc it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

When you say obvious, we see WP:SYNTHESIS. Ridernyc (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Industrial music origins

I think the industrial music origins of synthpop should be mentioned in the article because many industrial musicians such as Gary Numan, Nine Inch Nails and Ministry made synthpop music at least at one point of their musical careers and even in nowadays synthpop is regarded as a part of Rivethead culture. Apart from that, Depeche Mode is sometimes labeled as "industrial pop". - Myxomatosis75 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as you have a reliable source its fine.--SabreBD (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This is very interesting. These articles from CMJ investigate industrial pop music and how it sprouted from industrial metal, especially in regards to groups like Nine Inch Nails and Garbage. Check them out here. Also, this book by Daphne Carr really goes in depth with the NIN end of things. It can be read here: [4] --Thevampireashlee (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
One description of a Nine Inch Nails track as "industrial pop" (in fact as "Romantic-style industrial pop") does not indicate a genre. The sources given (this one and a listing from a copy of Billboard in which industrial and pop appear in two different songs) certainly do not indicate that this is a synonym for synthpop I am afraid. For that you really need something that says the equivalent of "synthpop also known as industrial pop".--SabreBD (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I misread the source. Apologies. You may be interested to note that industrial pop redirects here. Also, the links I posted above where given to address the influences Industrial metal had on synthpop; they weren't about the alternate title edit that I mistakenly made. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fusion genres

Synthpunk is not fusion of both Punk rock and Synthpop, but Electronic music.

Techno is rather derivative genre. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right about synthpunk. Not sure if you are saying that Techno is not a fusion genre.--SabreBD (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
But Techno is trully devirative genre. Techno isn't just mix of 2 genres.--82.139.5.13 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I agree, that is what the sources in the article suggest.--SabreBD (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well DEVO can be considered "Synthpunk" in the sense of fusing Punk Rock and Synthpop. Theburning25 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What? Citation and what?!

Synthpop received criticism for its limited and artificial sound and for its associations with alternative sexualities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.222.58.132 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully cleared it up a bit.Edkollin (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No citations are used in the lede. That may bother some editors but as long as the material summarized in the lede is adequately cited in the detail section below I don't have a problem with it.Edkollin (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Userbox

Is there any userbox for Synth-Pop fans to include in user page? Yoshida Keiji (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Electropop

Should electropop be here? I'm getting alternating sources on where it should be placed. This book on Lady Gaga states that the song "Just Dance" is "a disco song (known more popularly today as electropop)". This book also relates Gaga's style in both disco and electropop contexts here. This LGBT magazine, refers to Vitamin C's album "More" as "the definition of electropop" as well here here. Then there is this definition of the genre in this book, which seems to be the only major source trying to describe what the genre sounds like here. This could be enough information to give electropop it's own article, but since it seems to differ enough from synthpop, does it really belong in this article? I understand that the genre seems to have been tossed around in different terms in the 80s then it does now, but I think we need some clarification, especially since the article currently lists several artists in their cites (Britney, Lady Gaga, etc.) as synthpop when the articles themselves say electropop. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Electropop was merged with synthpop some years ago because there was evidence that they were synonyms and not any significant evidence that they were distinct. See the discussion in the archives at Talk:Synthpop/Archive 2#Merger with Synthpop.--SabreBD (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, but I thought it was a fair time to bring it up again. I think the information I've provided above suggests that it is different enough. I don't think it's fair for us to just assume it's the same genre. Yes that one book refers to them as the same genre, but the other citations suggest otherwise. We have to find something more specific. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the sources posted above, I am uncertain as to how they prove that synthpop and electropop are not synonyms. To me, it seems that the only evidence to suggest otherwise, only points out minor and infinitesimal differences between the two. The established consensus seems to be accurate and best for the situation. Unless more reliable sources can prove that electropop is significantly different from synthpop, I support the current decision to keep them combined. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I question how the established consensus actually came through though as we need to actually find sources. I've read the argument previously and found none, now that I've brought new ones to the table, I think they need to be addressed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The articles provided focus more on "Just Dance" and More than electropop as a genre. I'm not sure what you're using them to support. In these sources, there is insufficient information for defending the position that electropop is significantly different than synthpop or even a completely different genre. According to this source on Page 62, synthpop, electropop, and technopop are some of the examples of the new-New Wave sound emerging in music in the early 1980s. From this source, we can safely assume that they are all the same thing. I have seen no sources specifically say electropop, synthpop, and even technopop for that matter, are separate genres. This book is directly about the genres themselves, whereas the other sources provided are not. They're about works in the genre that are probably not written by musicologists, but amateur music journalists. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of my previous lines, the one I note is this one here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=nOrhiSrz-OkC&pg=PA107&dq=electropop&hl=en&sa=X&ei=id--UOvoOcG82wWFuoDIAQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ here]. Why are we using the source that mentions one sentence that synthpop is also called electropop when the source above has paragraphs and pages worth of information on how it's a different genre? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the entire source is about the genre and the evolution of New Wave music as a whole. This source, the one you provided, still does not seem to indicate a rift between electropop and synthpop at all. Given what is written and sourced in Synthpop, this source seems to only verify that the genres are identical. If not, please explain to me how they are different. This source is not adequate enough for that. The only way I would support splitting the articles is if an exact, reliable source said something along the lines of "Electropop is a separate genre from sythpop for this and this and this reason." It doesn't seem to say so. Right now, the only source (to my knowledge) that says anything about the relationship of the two, says that they are the same. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You are never going to have total agreement even with reliable sources with regard to genres especially catchall genres. One term gets favored for a few years then the other term comes into vogue for a few years etc. The other issue is that there are very few articles related to genres most are related to artists linking them with a genre. I don't have them in front of me but I saw few sources a few years back that said electropop is a harder version of synthpop. What could be done is what is done in most genre articles that is note the different definitions.
The articles were merged because at the time because the two articles were pretty much a copy of one another That was because the terms for the most part were being used synonymously by reliable sources. I have not followed this extremely closely the last couple of years but I don't think enough has changed so that re-splinting the article would not bring a repeat of the original issue. Edkollin (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with the Thevampireashlee and Edkollin. We looked at most of these sources when the decision was made to merge. The Music Projects With Propellerhead Reason book is a software use guide and dubious as a reliable sourced for a genre. Given that it includes Depeche Mode among the electropop bands and gives no explanation of the differences from "earlier synth based pop music", I am at loss to see how the two articles would be distinguished and how information from one would possibly be kept out to of the other to avoid a fork. While I am aware that some people may use electropop with a different emphasis, I do not think that there is evidence that there are two distinct genres.--SabreBD (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

With the electronic dance music scene still growing thanks to the turn of the decade dubstep splash, other genres are going to be explored. I've actually brushed into synthpop from the other direction, coming from the EBM/industrial scene. I first noted that the vocal styles of these synthpop artists were very 80s-esque like Pet Shop Boys, and upon reaching the page, was pleased to see them listed as an initiator of the genre. While I agree that synthpop is most likely experiencing some revival, I cannot connect Kesha with synthpop. Her music is "electropop" or something else that is related directly to mainstream pop music. The presence of synths in her music shouldn't lump her in with artists that sound completely different. La Roux at least maintains a hint of the melancholy vocals associated with the genre's origin, while Kesha's vocals and synths are more correlated with mainstream pop sounds that are emerging as artists merge more electro sounds into their production. Some part of what the page is considering synthpop needs to become known as something else and be moved elsewhere. Enonesohc (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What you're defining pop music as here is ambiguous to me. Certainly acts like La Roux, Depeche Mode, and Gary Newman were mainstream pop music acts in their own right, in their own time. Synthpop is pop music. It's right in the title. Currently, during this synthpop revival, we're seeing a synthesis of dance-pop and synthpop that deviates away from more rock and roll based genres because those simply aren't as popular as they were when synthpop began. We must also remember not to color the article with our own biases about what is considered synthpop; most major music sources that we consider reliable (Billboard and Allmusic for example) consider acts like Kesha to be of the synthpop genres. That's enough for me. I wrote a good portion of the article on Kesha, and the article is a good article. Her music has been called electropop, synthpop, and technpop (which this article proves are synonymous terms) as well as pop rap. So although her music falls under a hybrid genre, it is still within the scope of this article -- and probably one of the best, most notable examples of modern synthpop. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Transgressing received wisdom with factual injection

I am not exactly new to WP but nor do I know to use it particularly well. Apols for my bads. I am worried about the controversy possible around my injecting of Paul McCartney into the Synthpop article and am here to explain myself. Note that I carry no Macca axe as such BUT Because of the FACTUAL chart history, and the FACTUAL music/recording content of its material, I have just added the Wings single 'With a Little Luck'. Synthpop by any definition (there's only bass guitar other than synths on it), it dates from 1977 and happens to have hit US No 1 in Spring 1978. It is impossible to introduce it to the mix without some revision to the idea that synthpop didn't really 'get in there' til 1981 but unfortunatelty any attempt to exclude him gets, these days, troubled by the recent idea that in 1979 he's charting synthpop with 'Arrow Through Me', 'Wonderful Christmas Time' and these days is thought to have charted further synthpop and proto-techno with tracks from/around his 1980 'McCartney II' album. In other words, this ain't going away. Some restructuring on the narrative is necessary to take factual account of him, regardless of any opinion on him. I've made a start by placing the fact of the success of 'With A Little Luck' just prior to the release of 'Being Boiled' as a breakthrough for the instrument and opening this topic for further discussion. Please don't start on why he's 'no good' or something like that but consider the factual basis of this 'challenge to received wisdom'. Even as it stands the article and some of the source books on Synthpop seem to be pussyfooting around it for a long time and since a lot of the electronic artists consider him 'in there', it's just time to talk about it. Michaelk xsx (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The essential point is that it is not "truth" but verifiability that counts on Wikipedia. If you can find reliable sources that state that Wings contributed an early (an preferably influential) synthpop single, that it will probably stand. However, what we "know" to be true is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. That just counts as original research, which is not allowed here.--SabreBD (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest here, SabreBD. The Original Research 'edge' here seems to be about the WP article's definition of 'Synthpop'. A 'genre of popular music that first became prominent in the 1980s, in which the synthesizer is the dominant musical instrument'. This readily and transparently admits substantial quantities of tracks in McCartney's late 70's output as soon as 'reliable' articles which say it are proposed. But what's more at issue is that as soon as that is done, the passage '..that first became prominent in the 1980s..' not only becomes incorrect by the fact of a 1978 example ('With A Little Luck') having been US Number One but there is a slightly-more-than-'heretical' implication that McCartney becomes one of the category's strongest early proponents. It is THIS that I'm flagging for talk because the addition of 'reliable sources' may actually trigger further controversy. I hope I'm making any kind of sense here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelk xsx (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2014

fix an error in Influence section, there's Rhianna instead of Rihanna. Rhianna never embraced synthpop and was less popular, but Rihanna did and she is much more popular.

And also, decapitalize the words "dance music" in See Also section, due to grammar issues. 178.235.183.165 (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. I have fixed both.--SabreBD (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

May I suggest you add the pop duo 'Yazoo' (known as Yaz in North America) to the list of UK synthpop groups mentioned under the paragraph 'Commercial success (1981-85)'. I suggest the best place is probably the paragraph that starts with the words 'By the end of 1982, these acts had been joined in the charts by …' The reason for this inclusion is that Yazoo (Yaz) was a major player in 1980s' synthpop, releasing two groundbreaking and highly successful albums in 1982 and 1983. Please also could you link the name Yazoo to the relevant webpage. Many thanks. Imperator654 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite semi-protection

The article has been semi-protected for more than two years and it gets around 1100 views a day. Do the regular editors of the page have an objection to the page being unprotected or pending changes protected? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is lifted we will be dealing with a lot more vandalism, although it is hard to know if this will be at the same level as when the electro-pop revival was at its height.--SabreBD (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I've pending changes protected it, if the vandalism gets to be too much I'll reprotect it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, lets see how it goes.--SabreBD (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Post-Industrial/Darkwave/EBM

I find it highly ridiculous that this article mentions a lot of these bubblegum pop groups (Kesha, Britney Spears etc.) as some sort of revivalists, that have very little actual ties to Synthpop music, when there's been a constant strong connection to first wave Synthpop music within the Post-/Electro-Industrial/EBM/Darkwave scene. This even includes an offshoot of Synthpop called Futurepop, which mixes Synthpop with EBM & Trance music. With no mention of these groups whatsoever in the article! Groups such as Wolfsheim, S.P.O.C.K. , Beborn Beton, and offshoot Futurepop groups such as Apoptygma Berzerk, VNV Nation, and Covenant. JanderVK (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Need reliable sourcing naming Futurepop as synthpop revivalists, describing the current acts mentioned are psuedo synthpop. In the EBM artible I believe there are reliable sources making the connection. Edkollin (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Synthpop existed also in the 1990s. There are no revivalists because it was never really dead. In the 1990s, it was primarily popular in the DarkWave/EBM/Electronic underground music scene, bands such as And One, Elegant Machinery, De/Vision, Pitch Yarn Of Matter, Kiethevez, Second Decay, Northern Territories, and tons of other artists produced '80s-styled SynthPop music for the '90s.

Typical Instruments section?

Someone keeps having fun removing the typical instruments to piss people off and its not funny. so whoever is doing this is stupid. Please if anyone has the originals of the typical instruments on the genres I am requesting it back. Common sense would look at the article itself and see that its a synthesizer that makes the genre. Why the hate of instruments used for certain genres? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.89.236 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) feminist 13:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Synthpop → Synth-pop – The Google test lists "about 5,570,000 results" for synth-pop and "about 5,890,000" results for synthpop.

However, it's very likely that synthpop only gets more web results than synth-pop because of this article. If we limit the search to news pieces, we get:

  • Synth-pop: About 37,200 results
  • Synthpop: About 19,400 results

And when limited to books:

  • Synth-pop: About 7,050 results
  • Synthpop: About 4,170 results

Historically, synth-pop (or synth pop) appears to be the more common spelling. This is also true for technopop and techno pop:

  • Techno pop: About 7,520 results (books) / 3,450 (news)
  • Technopop: About 2,780 results (books) / 791 (news)

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This seems like the common name to me. The search statistics are kind of skewed; "synth-pop" brings up results for "synth pop" as well, not just "synth-pop" with the hyphen. Most results for "synth-pop" vary between the hyphen or the space, so I'd say you'd have to at least half those results to get something legitimate. Meanwhile, sole results for "synthpop" are fairly high and cannot be anything else, so I'd say it's likely to WP:COMMONNAME. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, synth pop is actually the grammatically correct form (see compound nouns vs. compound adjectives). Synth-pop would only be proper if the genre suggested synthetic pop, but it's obviously synthesizer pop. (I hadn't considered this before, so I'm changing the proposal slightly.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If you do a CTRL+F of synth-pop and synth pop when searching "synth pop" in Google, you'll see that it's 2-3 times more likely for it to be deployed with the hyphen than without. So, regardless of whether it's grammatically correct, synth-pop is by far the most common spelling.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Synth-pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Synth-pop/Archive_3&oldid=1142779184"